3)&4) are probably not necesseary or essential but put you in yoga heaven and progress is more likely to be more fast track.
Rishikesh looks like a good place to start.
1)You have a sadhana
2)You have experienced inner guru
3)You are in India and found a nice ashram.
4) There happens to be a living Master resident in the ashram that is available
Rishikesh would be a good place to start .I would aim to find a place a could focus on sadhana pretty quickly and settle down with.Like you say if you can stay for up to two years for the longer haul.And also absorb from other teachers & yogis there too.
That isha yoga dude is a fortune.I think some gurus don’t charge anything.
I think some paths may well have their weaknesses in some areas, atleast for some people that is.That is why finding a path that is working for you is a main consideration. Because you could submit yourself to a master and he might not give you all the keys you need. I think masters should know which keys you need. That is what disintiguishes themBut even complete yoga paths, some are better than others .Simply quicker and more effective.Tantra yoga and kundalini kirya and mantra yoga(when combined) are good yogas.
[B]Pawel[/B]
I don’t think any type of enlightenment results in TOTAL knowledge of the universe. E.g. how from many molecules this table you are using is composed of. Or does it? I’m searching for highly enlightened people to check that. Anyone here had such experience of total knowledge?
[B]I believe that Surya Deva is correct here in his response. No The Scales is not omniscient… lol can’t help you there. [/B]
For me, along with my little bundle of Karma, it was study that was my catalyst towards the spiritual life. I’d listen to the AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada audio book recording of the Bhagavad Gita on my ipod incessantly. Over and over and over and over.
Maybe not total renunciation of all books? Hmmmm.
If I was stranded on an Island and could have only one book it would be the mahabarata. If I could only have one piece of the mahabarata I would take the Gita. I love the Gita. It is to me complete in everyway.
Study supports Sadahana. At least for me. I had no guru that I could see with my eyes. As things went I would try to find answers to what was happening through the scriptures. I wouldn’t sometimes find the right answer until much later and not always in scripture. But always at the right time. 
Surya Deva I think it would be beneficial if you could give us updates on your progress and insights when you get where your going. If possible. Like an ongoing diary of sorts? That would be cool. I’d like to read it.
Have you tried asking the BIG GUY for help with your guru? or just some guidance in general? He does know best. It will show up if your serious you know… maybe not how you expect it but it will show up. If your serious… So be one the lookout!!!
[QUOTE=The Scales;33250][B]Pawel[/B]
I don’t think any type of enlightenment results in TOTAL knowledge of the universe. E.g. how from many molecules this table you are using is composed of. Or does it? I’m searching for highly enlightened people to check that. Anyone here had such experience of total knowledge?
[B]I believe that Surya Deva is correct here in his response. No The Scales is not omniscient… lol.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Its one of the concepts I’m trying to understand. Is “omniscience” to be understood in terms of knowledge - as an ability to construct mental structures corresponding with all universe? Which would include knowledge of number of atoms of the all tables everywhere, knowledge of the relationship between frequency content of sun light and a number of the germs in the lake, knowledge of all bank passwords etc.?
I think there is also another meaning - as a state of awareness of the connection of given level of existence with all reality (e.g. as in case of mental enlightenment when we feel we understand everything). So it wouldn’t mean that I have the access to and ability to generate all possible knowledge that can be constructed, but rather awareness of the correspondence between given level and universe (e.g. sensation that I understand everything in universe, that everything can be explained). Similarly with emotional enlightenment when we feel that "its all about ‘love’ ".
Also, the ability to perceive things is not yet enlightenment. A guy with a telescope can see other stars but it doesn’t make him any more enlightened than a guy without telescope.
I would like to talk with someone with this experience of omniscience. What it exactly means…
You’ve got the main ingredient in all transformation,bhakti,spiritula desire.
The rest will take care of itself. Even the spiritual guidance.I think a number of gurus and teachers is a good route to take.And cultivate your inner guru.Self-reliance is so freeing and empoweriing…A highly experienced guide sitting across from me would be nice but i know i have to do most of the work myself.Yes i he put me up for a year, yes i would be lucky.I think you could jumpstart your journey but some paths might give you quicker porgress. Trying out a number of paths and gurus is good as it makes you more discerning and able to appreciate which one might have shortcomings in certain areas or not.Also dependency on other teachers is not always a good thing. Gurus or teachers can guide you so far, bu then you have to break away and stand on your own feet so you are not stuck in the same garden path for too long.Folk that are stuck on a path or guru might only feel really empowered in their presence so guru-disciple dependency can be unhealthy, and have a disempowering effect,the looking to others for authority in order to guide our sadhana every inch,step of the way.Soometimes we need to question our teachers as wellas ourselves;this is fact often involves looking at ourselves.Cultivating inner guru.There is pitfalls in buying nto teachings that may be weak in certain areas for some people.And the role of gurus could play some hand in this as well as inspire.Gurus are v .good though but they’re merely guides, and inspirers.They soften us up so we can practice.
I would like to talk with someone with this experience of omniscience. What it exactly means…
I think it possibly apporaximates in part atleast to dropping the dogma of conceptualisation which blinds us to a true awareness of reality.We stop tring to evaulate it.We accept it as it is.
It could also be like a perpetual “a-ha” train of moments or rather continuum of experience,as if all the dots join up and in a perpetual dynamic, but also a wonder and in-aweness feeling at the universe.An inner knowing and a mystical experience of Oneness.
[QUOTE=core789;33254]I think it possibly apporaximates in part atleast to dropping the dogma of conceptualisation which blinds us to a true awareness of reality.We stop tring to evaulate it.We accept it as it is.[/QUOTE]
Hm… I always thought that knowledge is a conceptualization - representation of the reality using mental constructs. If you drop conceptualization you can’t really generate any knowledge. It would be awareness and perception then. The same way I perceive that part of reality in front of me is an object called by humans computer (well, by using word computer I already conceptualized reality…), but I don’t know how it exactly works. And even if I could see all the currents flowing through it guts I still wouldn’t have knowledge of its workings.
Maybe it’s not a computer if you don’t conceptualise it.
True or real knowledge is probably free of conceptualisation.Knowledge is bondage, illusion. limitation. Vedanta- end of knowledge.
I think the suggestion is maybe it’s not practical knowledge.It does’nt generate further knowledge which is what llike you say knowedge usually does. It reproduces. But more of the same stuff.Useful information to turn into a useful submarine design- is that knowledge?. Or is an altered state of consciousness? somehow better knowledge. Inner knowing.Inner knowledge.Discrimintory knowledge about real basics of realitty, the building blocks. consciousness,awarness itself.Maybe that is better knowledge. I don’t know.But i think i know what i’d have.
Knowledge that brings the search to an imgagined end,a satisfactory conclusion? How do we live- knowledge of the art of living ,skillful existence and evolution.Maybe we need to learn some things in order to prepare to unlearn things that do not serve us, are not useful somehwo or practical. . I see what you’re saying though. I do take your point,yes.
[QUOTE=core789;33257]Maybe it’s not a computeer if you don’t conceptualise it.[/QUOTE]
So in what sense a person unable to recognize a computer from other objects can be called omniscient? I feel there is a misconception somewhere…
Because we think it’s useful or superior knowledge,say in compaprison to other observations we could make.But it’s not really.But some kind of perceptual error.We just all agree it’s a computer based on the supposed higher functioning and practicality we want to confer on it. Yes if we had’nt lit fires at the end of our caves at night we might be extinct.
Don’t forget it’s a shared conditioning. That is partly why it’s generally thought that the enlgihtened tend to be in a minority or number a few.If we were all enlightenend equally then the term might lack any cache.
Of course that is a limited sense of knowing( and therfore in some ways erroenous; it is only useful to some people ,to gods it means anything they choose). It is deep metaphysical knowing beyond ideas.,mental constructs like yousay. You could say touches on the level of intuition and the like… It is what separates the philosopher from the mystic. It is inner knowing,wisdom rather than fancy ideas,conceptualisations and tidy grand theories.Deep gut knowing and feeling.
I think you can combine the methodologies of science with spiritual and metaphysical knowing. They did used to call physics natural philosophy until relatively recently, i believe…
Omniscience is all knowing.
And logically ,that kiind of awarnesss could have better ideas for a computer than we currently have. In fact they would probably laugh at our comparitive primitiveness.Like sleeping on a bed of flint stones.They might think we were really backwards.
If one was omniscient one might not choose to see the computer like we do as a bundel of electronics ,silicon and metals all glued together.A god connects all objects together,even the most dissparate. Finds harrmony in the whole.He does’nt look for separation.He sees the table the computer it’s on and the room both are in, if he chooses and therefore ssees that as just as important if he chooses.
Omniscience could be described as the the most perfect level of self-awareness or self-knowledge.Which brings you back to that SD quote ‘I am God’.Maybe it’s easier just to say I am rather than affix the ‘God’ concept onto the end which might be the biggest illusion and trickery of them all…Religion could be a form of organised hypnosis.Marx did day it was opium for the people but then the same thing could be said of Marxism,indeed even more so.
[QUOTE=core789;33253]You’ve got the main ingredient in all transformation,bhakti,spiritula desire.
The rest will take care of itself. Even the spiritual guidance.I think a number of gurus and teachers is a good route to take.And cultivate your inner guru.Self-reliance is so freeing and empoweriing…A highly experienced guide sitting across from me would be nice but i know i have to do most of the work myself.Yes i he put me up for a year, yes i would be lucky.I think you could jumpstart your journey but some paths might give you quicker porgress. Trying out a number of paths and gurus is good as it makes you more discerning and able to appreciate which one might have shortcomings in certain areas or not.Also dependency on other teachers is not always a good thing. Gurus or teachers can guide you so far, bu then you have to break away and stand on your own feet so you are not stuck in the same garden path for too long.Folk that are stuck on a path or guru might only feel really empowered in their presence so guru-disciple dependency can be unhealthy, and have a disempowering effect,the looking to others for authority in order to guide our sadhana every inch,step of the way.Soometimes we need to question our teachers as wellas ourselves;this is fact often involves looking at ourselves.Cultivating inner guru.There is pitfalls in buying nto teachings that may be weak in certain areas for some people.And the role of gurus could play some hand in this as well as inspire.Gurus are v .good though but they’re merely guides, and inspirers.They soften us up so we can practice.[/QUOTE]
I think the guru should love the student like his own child. Even more so. I think the guru who is right for you, if embodied, will have a profound perhaps transcendental connection with you.
The guru studies you. He may be a teacher to others, but with you the relationship is much closer. He may have his own unique style in keeping with his personality which meshes harmoniously with yours.
It has to have a closeness, a certain intimacy.
I think this would be an ideal.
There are not just suprasensorial realities, but infrasensorial ones too. But those areas are dangerous. Edgar Cayce’s cairvoyance, Blavatsky’s clairvoyance, and many eastern masters too, recieved and recieve spirtual messages, images, knowledge, without being able to maintain their clear daylight consciousness. Such things, while might be useful, as tools for higher powers, should never be examples for an earnest seeker. There are shortcuts as you say. A sound minded disciple will stay far away from them. Just wanted to present a view what is less forgiving regarding drugs.
It’s a very odd idea, drugs giving some sort of insight. There are so many drugs, and they effect people differently. When I was a drinker, I was an angry drunk, and used to get aggressive, and make excuses to justify my actions. It’s as far from realization as one could get. LSD and pot used to make me feel enlightened, but they just fucked my mind after a while, and my last drug problem was morphine. It makes you feel very satisfied, but after a while you develop a tolerance, and you need it just to feel normal. Paracetamol is a drug, but all that does is get rid of headaches. Drugs are just drugs.
These bulky little contraptions we call computers are definitely primitive compared to the nanocomputers and quantum computers we are poised to get. Computers will become so small they will become invisible. An entire computer could be contained within a cell of your body. It will get so precise we will be able to contain them within atoms.
The Yogis long realised the universe is like a natural computer that works through dynamics of pranic currents(even more subtle than a quark) and that these pranic currents can be programmed in various ways to do pretty much about anything. So yes to those yogis we are incredibly primitive. I was reading somewhere that the gods look upon us as as we look upon an animals. We are animals to them.
On drugs.
It is a controversial subject in modern times, but it was not controversial to ancient spiritual traditions. Many spiritual traditions consider them valid, they have been used by the ancient Vedic people(Soma plant) by shamans in all traditions, and even yogis and tantics have used them. Patanjali very explicitly mentions them as being another valid way to reach supersensible realities and attain psychic powers:
4.1 Psychic powers arise by birth, drugs, mantras, purificatory acts and austerity(tapas or sadana)
In other words you can be born with knowledge and powers of supersensory things. If not, you can also attain them through drugs, mantras, some kind of kriya yoga(cleanses the pranic system and activates the kundalini) or through pure sadana.
I by no means condone taking drugs because of the pitfalls associated with them, but they do have the power to take you there. I have only done one drug once in my entire life and that was mushrooms in a small dose, and it gave me a lot of experiences instantly that I’ve had to work really hard for in Yoga. It helped me make sense of all things I was doing prior to that(qiqong) I could actually feel the the prana when doing the qigong exercises. The meditation also made sense as my consciousness became like a laser, whatever I focussed on it penetrated very deep in it. The chanting of the mantra OM proved to be very powerful. It also made me realise just how special everybody is, because everybody I looked at looked like their own universe to me. I just became an observer with no judgement watching the person and how fascinating they were. None of this was hallucination because I had full control over the entire process. I could zoom in and zoom out so to speak.
It was a turning point in my spiritual journey and since I have not done it ever again. I had approached it with the right sacred intention that that the ancient traditions used it for not as some kind of recreation. This is why I never felt the need to do it again. It simply confirmed to me that Yoga worked and I can get to these states the natural way using Yoga.
Drugs are not entirely random. Of course individual experiences will vary but we can make general predictions about what will happen at different doses. This is why the mental plane has both subjective(subconscious) and objective properties(constructed similarly) So yes in a near death experience each person will have a different experience based on their subconscious(some will see Jesus, some will see Buddha etc) but the generals will be remarkably consistent(life review, hall of records/information) Some people who share similar subconscious patterns will share the same reality(intersubjective realities)
Please review the research of Robert Monroe who is a pioneer in the research of the mental plane. He has found there are places just like the Christian heavens and hells, places just like the Muslim heavens and hells, and places just like the Hindu heavens and hells. He is also found at more higher planes there are more stable planes of reality which are unlike any imagination on earth and they have their own exotic life. This is something Machio Kaku predicts as well at higher dimensions there could be exotic life made out of higher vibrational matter.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33168]you cannot beat me. I am a very powerful Jnana yogi(intellectual yogi) and have mastered philosophy, or very close to mastering it.[/QUOTE]
You cannot destroy me! My Yoga strong and powerful like warrior! Your Yoga frail and weak, like schoolgirl selling marshmallows! ;)
SuryaDeva,
Your Quote: Patanjali very explicitly mentions them as being another valid way to reach supersensible realities and attain psychic powers:
4.1 Psychic powers arise by birth, drugs, mantras, purificatory acts and austerity(tapas or sadana)
It is a wrong and misleading translation. Secondly, Patanjali has written “sutras” that means “thread”, so context has great significance and you cannot take one sutra and interprete in isolation.
Though the effect of these five things may be apparently similar, there is tremendous difference in terms of the goal of Yoga, enlightenment. When powers arise by birth, it is not accidental. It is a legacy of previous births in which the powers were acquired through spiritual practices. This is obvious in the fact that such powers survive death. In comparison, the so called power of drugs vanishes the moment the change-agent is gone. Secondly, unlike the spiritual progress that accumulates in a positive way, drugs produce harmful side effects, ultimately destroying the same bodies (physical-astral and causal) that take you to enlightenment. Though not as harmful as drugs, mantras, penance and austerities have similar limitation of not being able to permanently transform the yogi.
These five agents of similar effects are mentioned by Patanjali in comparison to highlight and distinguish the cell-level changes that eight-fold Yoga path brings about. These changes are positive and ireversible. Hope you agree.